Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cracking the Quran code
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 October 7. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This discussion narrowly escaped a "delete" consensus. However, although the sources cited in the article do have a fringe-y and/or ideologically partisan feel to them, I can't find a consensus for deletion in this discussion in the absence of a clear agreement among editors that they are unreliable. If the sourcing situation does not improve reasonably soon, a new nomination might come to a different conclusion. Sandstein 16:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cracking the Quran code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article on a book does not support the book's notability. The three references are not what I would call reliable sources (one is just a copy-paste of the Google Books listing), the external link is useless, and the ISBN number does not show up in any libraries. That and the author has been pushing a POV on Israel and Judaism related articles. I can safely say that Wikipedia does not need an article on this particular publication.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection. Sheik Abdul Hadi Palazzi is very notable in general [1] and in books [2], on whom the book is based.RS101 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur, delete. DS (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and per nom. Creator may have a conflict of interest (making this possibly spam), as his user page is essentially a duplicate of this article. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry 'Stonemason89' but your activities does support a certain bias against the Jewish people, here [3] and here [4] Your "vote" is irrelevant.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not comment on the editor. Comment on the content. No one's "'vote' is irrelevant", unless they only have 6 edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's fair game by Stonemason89...
Dallas hero1989 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]User: I.. is obviously extremely biased in regards to I-P conflict issues, as evidenced by the ranting, alarmist content of his user page (which I have nominated for speedy deletion). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[5]
- If it's fair game by Stonemason89...
- Do not comment on the editor. Comment on the content. No one's "'vote' is irrelevant", unless they only have 6 edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry 'Stonemason89' but your activities does support a certain bias against the Jewish people, here [3] and here [4] Your "vote" is irrelevant.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a brand new book, and it seems to be rather unimportant. Someday in the future, the book may become notable. Also, I don't see many secondary sources referring to the book. If the topic of the book is really significant, there should be other sources discussing the topic, and the material could be put into the Qu'ran article. --Noleander (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Shiva (Visnu) 00:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete particularly the "isbn does not show up in any library." That, plus the total lack of independent in depth treatment of this likely self-published book does it for me.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like self promotion, Sadads (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What "self"? are you claiming that the author posted it? that's ludicrous.RS101 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well noted [6] Abdul Hadi Palazzi line on whom the book is based is about a notorious Muslim cleric interpertations. Showing outside links like [7] only reinforces the legitimacy reason why it's needed.RS101 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't prove the book is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An putside links does prove it.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No they don't.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An putside links does prove it.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't prove the book is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per rs101 great argument.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Dallas hero1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:rs101 has won my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying the book discusses a specific cleric does not convey its notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ret Prof: I notice you seem to vote "Keep" on many, many AfDs, typically with 1-line explanations. I was wondering if you could take some time here to elaborate on why you think this specific book meets WP notability requirements? --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, RS101's "argument" is frankly pathetic. It consists of a google search on Sheikh Palazzi (not on the book. And not that google searches establish anything but if one puts "Sheik Palazzi" in quotes, as one should, you get under 6,000 hits, which is miniscule) and a review on Arutz Sheeva, a propoganda outlet for the settler movement. So nary a reliable source there.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ret Prof: I notice you seem to vote "Keep" on many, many AfDs, typically with 1-line explanations. I was wondering if you could take some time here to elaborate on why you think this specific book meets WP notability requirements? --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems non-notable. Can recreate later if its gets Reliable third party coverage. Probably could have been speedy deleted as it does not make any assertion of notability.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a strange case. Nominator is right, the book isn't accessible in the libraries and I can't find an entry on WorldCat. On the other hand, there are quite substantial reviews/interviews published by IsraelNationalNews.com (Arutz Sheva), weeklyblitz.net (Weekly Blitz). I'm not sure if the religious websites opentheword.org and jesus.ch (in German) count as reliable sources, but in my opinion it is possible to compile an informative article about this book. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book isn't notable, why should we cover it at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NBOOK, #1: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. I think the book meets this criterion, as it was noted by various newspapers/websites mentioned above. The book is new, its absence in libraries isn't surprising. It is a borderline case, of course, but I think it is worthy of inclusion. It's just my opinion. I'm not familiar with the complicated political context. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are you refering to? Arutz Sheeva (AKA "Israel National News") isn't a reliable source nor is www.jesus.ch, nor is www.opentheword.org (those two are christian proselytizing organizations, the first is a propaganda outlet for the settler movement in Israel). www.weeklyblitz.net is run by a self-declared "Muslim zionist" and has rather strong views (read its about page) that will disgualify it as a reliable, independent source as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noted that, Bali. The sources may be biased and unbalanced, but the book attracted their attention, that's a verifiable fact. We will delete the article because the coverage is biased... Israel National News may be a propaganda outlet, but it's Israel's fourth most widely read newspaper (at least according to Wikipedia). The newspaper surely represents an important point of view in Israel. Should we delete all the refs from our articles? That would be bias. I've no interest other than encyclopedic. In my opinion it is possible to write an informative article, link the sources and let the readers make their own opinion. I admit, I know very little about the conflict and perhaps I'm naive, but this AfD looks rather like a battle of personal political standpoints. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you assert Arutz Sheeva is a reliable source for establishing notability for this article. It's pointless to argue the difference between newspapers that strive for accuracy and balance and propaganda outlets so i won't. What either reliable independent sources do you have to offer that elevate this fringe book -- unnoticed by any middle of the road publication or journal -- to notability in the wikipedia sense?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have said all in my previous comments. I'll respect any result of this discussion without much excitement. People's opinions differ and it is always better to have more arguments. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you assert Arutz Sheeva is a reliable source for establishing notability for this article. It's pointless to argue the difference between newspapers that strive for accuracy and balance and propaganda outlets so i won't. What either reliable independent sources do you have to offer that elevate this fringe book -- unnoticed by any middle of the road publication or journal -- to notability in the wikipedia sense?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noted that, Bali. The sources may be biased and unbalanced, but the book attracted their attention, that's a verifiable fact. We will delete the article because the coverage is biased... Israel National News may be a propaganda outlet, but it's Israel's fourth most widely read newspaper (at least according to Wikipedia). The newspaper surely represents an important point of view in Israel. Should we delete all the refs from our articles? That would be bias. I've no interest other than encyclopedic. In my opinion it is possible to write an informative article, link the sources and let the readers make their own opinion. I admit, I know very little about the conflict and perhaps I'm naive, but this AfD looks rather like a battle of personal political standpoints. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are you refering to? Arutz Sheeva (AKA "Israel National News") isn't a reliable source nor is www.jesus.ch, nor is www.opentheword.org (those two are christian proselytizing organizations, the first is a propaganda outlet for the settler movement in Israel). www.weeklyblitz.net is run by a self-declared "Muslim zionist" and has rather strong views (read its about page) that will disgualify it as a reliable, independent source as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NBOOK, #1: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. I think the book meets this criterion, as it was noted by various newspapers/websites mentioned above. The book is new, its absence in libraries isn't surprising. It is a borderline case, of course, but I think it is worthy of inclusion. It's just my opinion. I'm not familiar with the complicated political context. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book isn't notable, why should we cover it at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am with Vejvančický. But of course Arutz Sheva is not only about reliablity but notoriety as well. Salamaat (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) — Salamaat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
[reply]
extended content collapsed for readability that should be take to WP:RSN
|
|---|
|
Here's what another user posted: Acceptance and reliability of 'Arutz Sheva'
The National Review has recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news.[Dave Kopel, Follow the Leader, National Review ]
Israel National News is widely cited in books.The compendium: a critical analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict, July 2000-July 2002 . Author George D. Hanus. Publisher Gravitas Media, 2002, ISBN 0972291393, 9780972291392, p. 7, p. 239 , Al-Naqba (the catastrophe). Author Barbara A. Goldscheider. Frog Books, 2005, p. 252 [8], The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival. Author Aaron Klein. Publisher WND Books, 2009, p. 214 [9], Female terrorism and militancy: agency, utility, and organization p. 65, Cindy D. Ness, Political Science 2008 ][The new Iranian leadership: Ahmadinejad, terrorism, nuclear ambition, and the Middle East. Praeger Security International Series. Authors Yonah Alexander, Milton M. Hoenig. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. p 276 [10], Rushing Ahead to Armageddon . Christopher M Jones. Xulon Press, 2010, p. 50, Artistic Adaptations: Approaches and Positions p. 123. Ferial J. Ghazoul, Art, 2008 [11], A Diary of Four Years of Terrorism and Anti-Semitism, p. 388. Robert R Friedmann, Political Science, Universe, 2005 ISBN 9780595793013 [12], Where's My Miracle? p. 90, Morey Schwartz, Religion - 2010. Based on the article by Baruch Gordon, "Kabbalist Urges Jews to Israel Ahead of Upcoming Disasters," Israel National News, September 23, 2005 [13], John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, highly critical of Israel, have also quoted IsraelNationalNews.com. The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy, John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, 2007 p. 440
Among media outlets quoting Israel National News, are The Guardian [14] The Washington Post,[15] The Washington Times[16][17][18] and Foxnews [19][20][21] Salamaat (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Delete Since I have not read the book, but have read the article, I must say this is either one of two things. 1) a WP:COATRACK or 2)a non-notable fringe theory. Both earn deletes. Sven Manguard Talk 04:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.